“…Syria is run like a criminal gang and will do what they are told by Iran…”
hedo:
Can you expound on this a little more? (This is the first that I’ve seen that Assad is a “puppet” of Iran?)
Great discussion, guys…
Thanks!
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
GDollar:
The “huh?” needs to go your way!
(And I welcome lixy correcting me…)
Syria and Iran are NOT on “the same side”.
Iran is composed of mostly SHIA Muslims in both the Theocracy and in the population.
Syria houses, bank-rolls and supplies Iraqi SUNNI expatriates; and it is the SUNNI lead insurgency that is blowing you Shia Holy Sites and Mosques.
These are Centuries Old hatreds that have come to the surface FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD (Iraqis know the hatreds) to see when Saddam was toppled.
Saddam was Sunni; Khomeni was Shia; they fought an EXTREMELY destructive and bloddy War to a stalemate in the 80’s. (Read of the Battle of Khorramshar if you want to read of the brutality and destruction of War).
The list goes on and on.
Again…Syria and Iran are FAR from being “on the same side…”
Mufasa[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Iran is a Shiite theocracy. Syria is NOT a Sunni theocracy. It’s a secular Baathist state, and the ruling family and much of the higher echelon is Alawites. Know what Alawites are? Shiites. Syria is 70% Sunni, but its ruling class are Shiites. Next door in Lebanon, Syria’s primary foreign policy concern, its proxy army is the Shiite Hezbollah, not the third of Lebanon that is Sunni, most of whom hate Syria.
Syria is happily stirring up trouble for us in Iraq, just as they happily joined the coalition to toss the Iraqis out of Kuwait in 1991. And as I said, they are a secular state. You can’t just overlay the whole Middle East with a “Sunni vs. Shiite Muslim civil war” template, it doesn’t always work that way.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Absolutely it is a proxy war. The American public doesn’t want to face up to that fact yet because they are getting weary. It simply can’t be ignored anymore.
No, it’s not a proxy war. If Tehran and Damascus had unsettled scores, they would have taken them out in the occupied territories.
Assad isn’t as religously fanatical as A-Jab.
Repeat after me: Assad’s regime is se-cu-lar!
And if you wanna be taken seriously, the least you can do is to learn spelling the name of the Iranian president.
If he was he would be in the forefront. Iran is also a lot more ambition on a regional basis and seeks more regional power to further the fanatical aims of the Theocrats.
Yes. Iran’s got everything to become a regional power.
A pullout isn’t inevitable or likely in the short term.
Agreed.
Syria doesn’t present much of an opposition and can be dealt with militarily in short order.
Nah. Syria simply don’t matter.
Iran is a little more difficult but it’s military capacity can be eliminated in weeks. (Air Force, Navy and large ground formations) The US isn’t ready to do that yet but we are certainly preparing to do so. The Iranians need something like this to shore up support so it will happen. I don’t know who will prevail, perhaps the Saudi’s or Turks will run Iraq as a protectorate, maybe even the US.
This line of thinking is scary. You actually believe Iran want to clash mano-a-mano with the US? That’s insane. Your lack of knowledge may lead you to associate them with the suicidal wackos at Al-Qaeda or the (arguably legitimate?) Palestinian resistance just because they happen to share the same religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is that the Iranian leaders are rational and pragmatic. Going to war with the world’s sole superpower is suicidal and they know it. They won’t provoke you. But then again, you never needed much of a cassus belli to go to war.
[/quote]
Agreed. Iran is not “stupid.” And if you can put yourself in their heads for a minute, if you were a large state that wants to be a regional power, but is surrounded by hostile nations that think you’re apostates, and has just seen the strongest military in the world depose and then occupy your two next door neighbors…wouldn’t you want nuclear weapons too? Especially given the contrasting treatment offered to Saddam and Kim Jong Il as a result? I’m not saying it’s right, but if you were an Iranian mullah, getting nukes is an eminently rational thing to do.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Syria is run like a criminal gang and will do what they are told by Iran…”
hedo:
Can you expound on this a little more? (This is the first that I’ve seen that Assad is a “puppet” of Iran?)
Great discussion, guys…
Thanks!
Mufasa[/quote]
Mufassa
In Syria you have a small cadre controlling the population, much like a criminal gang runs an area. The family and it’s supporters benefit above all else. As in Lebanon, they kill to preserve the franchise. Much of the funding comes from Iran, which is awash in oil money.
My opininion is that Iran will call the shots and use the money as an inducement to have Syria engage Israel. It probably will not take much prodding considering the history. Assad has close ties with the Iranians.
How much control they have is speculation and self interest is probably more important but the influence of the Iranians should not be discounted.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Absolutely it is a proxy war. The American public doesn’t want to face up to that fact yet because they are getting weary. It simply can’t be ignored anymore.
No, it’s not a proxy war. If Tehran and Damascus had unsettled scores, they would have taken them out in the occupied territories.
Assad isn’t as religously fanatical as A-Jab.
Repeat after me: Assad’s regime is se-cu-lar!
And if you wanna be taken seriously, the least you can do is to learn spelling the name of the Iranian president.
If he was he would be in the forefront. Iran is also a lot more ambition on a regional basis and seeks more regional power to further the fanatical aims of the Theocrats.
Yes. Iran’s got everything to become a regional power.
A pullout isn’t inevitable or likely in the short term.
Agreed.
Syria doesn’t present much of an opposition and can be dealt with militarily in short order.
Nah. Syria simply don’t matter.
Iran is a little more difficult but it’s military capacity can be eliminated in weeks. (Air Force, Navy and large ground formations) The US isn’t ready to do that yet but we are certainly preparing to do so. The Iranians need something like this to shore up support so it will happen. I don’t know who will prevail, perhaps the Saudi’s or Turks will run Iraq as a protectorate, maybe even the US.
This line of thinking is scary. You actually believe Iran want to clash mano-a-mano with the US? That’s insane. Your lack of knowledge may lead you to associate them with the suicidal wackos at Al-Qaeda or the (arguably legitimate?) Palestinian resistance just because they happen to share the same religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is that the Iranian leaders are rational and pragmatic. Going to war with the world’s sole superpower is suicidal and they know it. They won’t provoke you. But then again, you never needed much of a cassus belli to go to war.
Agreed. Iran is not “stupid.” And if you can put yourself in their heads for a minute, if you were a large state that wants to be a regional power, but is surrounded by hostile nations that think you’re apostates, and has just seen the strongest military in the world depose and then occupy your two next door neighbors…wouldn’t you want nuclear weapons too? Especially given the contrasting treatment offered to Saddam and Kim Jong Il as a result? I’m not saying it’s right, but if you were an Iranian mullah, getting nukes is an eminently rational thing to do.[/quote]
If they were “smart” they would realize that crowing about Israel and the US will continue to isolate them.
The majority of the Iranian population (70%) likes America and the West and wants closer ties with them. The smart play for Iran is to embrace the US and the West. Hold themselves up as the stable regional partner that can control the outlaws in the ME. Act as a peacekeeper when called. In other words join the modern civilized world instead of a being a thuggish Theocracy. This is what the people actually want. Not the crooks in charge.
Imagine for a moment that they did what I am suggesting. The US and Europe would shower them with money, prestige and respect. They would no doubt have access to any western weapon they wanted and could dictate favorable oil deals and infrastructure development insuring peace and prosperity. With Iraq gone…they would have no threat and get the control and respect they seek…imagine that.
First rate analysis by James Dunnigan. Additional reasoning why you will not see a pullout for at least a few years.
Thanks guys!
Very insightful.
More after work…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Because Assad is smart enough to see that Iranian influence and al-qaeda terrorism are a threat to the status quo in Syria. Wahabbis are not good for business in Syria…”
Gkahn:
Can you expound on this a little more?
Thanks!
Mufasa
[/quote]
Assad is a Stalinist dictator, much like Saddam. He is secular, like Lixy said. He fears any threat to his rule. The last thing a guy like Assad wants is for muslim extremists to run rampant in his country. They would challenge his rule, and it might end up much like it did to the Shah in Iran. Look at the current situation in Pakistan for another example of this.
From the Administration Report to Congress:
“…As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into Iraq from Syria…”
I’m trying to get clear in my mind what you guys feel is Assad’s involvement in Iraq:
-
Simply “stirring the pot” to keep the Extremist “busy”?
-
A “Low key” supporter of Sunni Led insurgents?
-
Doing what Iran tells him to do?
Okay…it may be my “simple” mind again…but you guys have had Assad’s involvement run almost from a passive observer to a pawn of Iran.
The other big question:
Are you guys saying that Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Iraq is greater than Syria’s?
(Thanks for the patience, guys! I HATE being ignorant on important topics…)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
From the Administration Report to Congress:
“…As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into Iraq from Syria…”
I’m trying to get clear in my mind what you guys feel is Assad’s involvement in Iraq:
-
Simply “stirring the pot” to keep the Extremist “busy”?
-
A “Low key” supporter of Sunni Led insurgents?
-
Doing what Iran tells him to do?
[/quote]
Somewhere between 1 and 2. They’re playing a dangerous game, in that Sunni fundamentalism is the last thing Assad wants (again, wiki “Hama”), but the martyrdom cult, insurgent DVDs, and the like could have a domestic effect in Syria.
Quite possibly. Depends who you ask I guess. The “Anbar Awakening” against Al Qaeda was quite likely fuelled by Saudi money.
What I will say without a doubt is that if we leave and Iraq descends into even worse civil war (not guaranteed but likely, and maybe inevitable), the Saudis will be the biggest backer of the Sunnis, with Jordan and Egypt right behind. They’re terrified of a Shiite-dominated Iraq.
Take a look at where Saudi Arabia’s marginalized Shiite minority lives. Then check where most of the Saudi oil reserves are.
Thanks, GDollar!
I’m asking so many questions about Assad because no one seems to mention him at all…like he is almost a non-factor…
To “ignore” him, (and I’m sure that in the grande scheme of things he is not being ignored, especially by the U.S. and Israel), seems to be a dangerous thing to do.
The Saudi’s…now THOSE guys are working out to be some sneaky bastards…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The Saudi’s…now THOSE guys are working out to be some sneaky bastards…
Mufasa [/quote]
Some articles detailing Saudi-Al-Qaeda connections. Read what happens in the second one when a captured Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis…
http://membrane.com/pac/Saudi_Arabia.htm
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/september2003/confessions_of_a_terrorist.htm
I think that Assad is riding the fence here. He does not back the US because of it’s support of Israel, and giving terrorists passage through Syria is not a bad thing to him or his government.
On the other hand. . .basically what I already said about him. . . .